>From: "Dr. Rich Artym" <rartym@galacta.demon.co.uk>>Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 02:50:04 +0000 (GMT)>Subject: Re: Sex as obsolete and "hormone-driven">>In message <328456B9.B4A@xtra.co.nz>, banjo writes:>>> It seems to me that some people here want to become not so much Transhuman>> as non-human.>>That may or may not be the case, depending on the individual. The only>thing that is certain about a transhuman is that he or she or it will have>gone "beyond" their humanity in a few or in many ways. To that smaller or>larger extent, they will indeed be non-human, by definition.

Not if you understand what banjo meant by "non-human" (elaborated below),
I think.

>the other side of the coin is that unless the change has been 100% then>a degree of humanity will remain. It's not black and white, but fuzzy.

Certainly.

>The other thing that perhaps should be said is that to point a finger>at the non-human part of transhumans (frown implied) is rather speciest,>or at least indicates some intolerance for those transcending their human>limits. That sits very poorly alongside the self-transformation and>acceptance of diversity that is at the very heart of transhumanism.

I disagree strongly but I think the use of the word "human" is a large
part of the problem. You are using it in a sort of clinical, species-
identifying way, where banjo is using it to mean the *best* qualities
of humans. I strongly don't want to live with extra-clever beings who
have *rejected* what I consider the most important parts of humanity.
I may "tolerate" them, in a wary way, if that day comes, but until then
I'll try hard to convince people not to create them or become them.

This is the main reason I'm an extropian: because the point is not just
to celebrate change, any old change, but to try to make change for the
better rather than the worse. Extropy rather than entropy.

--Steve

--
sw@tiac.net http://www.tiac.net/users/sw
"It just keeps going and going and therefore you yourself have to keep
going and going." --Energizer Bunny researcher